Jump to content

The End. It's coming.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First of all, nice to see you on our side syz, i understand your problems with our pov, and i accept them. however, it is nice to see that you are still with us.
@ ES, nice to have you back mate, i somehow missed you :)
to all the others, and to me, shouldn´t we stay on topic? (which is syz dow on evryone? )

and yes, it is syz, not DAC :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='JT Jag' date='15 February 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1266202076' post='2181950']
the public opinion one
[/quote]
I so love that phrase.
Still do not know how it collaborates with your previous statement, but hey its a pretty catch word.

Somebody though said its all about syz. I agree. Have fun fighting for your friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='(DAC)Syzygy' date='11 February 2010 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1265897205' post='2174686']
I have no problem with people wanting to see TOP dead. But at least they shouldn't lie about it and play the "oh see the big guy did me wrong, all help me poor victim and beat the crap out of him!" !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]I think a large portion of us have already said we don't want to risk them gunning for us again by letting them get off easy.

That aside, nice post and I wish you the best of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='13 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1266099653' post='2179802']
I've never said TOP acted with much sense in that matter ;)


I don't really want to get into the 'threatens every alliance in the game', though I would say that attacking alliances that are extremely likely to oppose you in a coalition war is less dangerous than attacking alliances that have done nothing to you and are not going to oppose you imminently, as a C&G member and a SF ally have done recently. But what I have quoted shows either your ignorance or wish to push a point, because TOP [i]have[/i] changed their leadership – they had an election, and the man who is arguably the architect of the decision (Crymson) was not re-elected. TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again.
[/quote]
That's cute. We changed leadership and you and TOP didn't let that faze you and rolled us anyway. You guys set the precedent. Man, that must suck! :smug:

Edited by Elyat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just pointing out that the guy who said TOP needed to change their leader needed to look at the facts. The point about rolling them is that the argument "we don't want to risk them gunning for us again by letting them get off easy" can be readily countered by "TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again" (and this was the case since day 1 of the front).

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='15 February 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1266239738' post='2182847']
Hey, I'm just pointing out that the guy who said TOP needed to change their leader needed to look at the facts. The point about rolling them is that the argument "we don't want to risk them gunning for us again by letting them get off easy" can be readily countered by [b]"TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again"[/b] (and this was the case since day 1 of the front).
[/quote]While it's likely that they wont be trusting Polaris or Grub again, there is no reliable data indicating TOP's decision making processes regarding pre-emptive attacks to have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1266249720' post='2183023']
While it's likely that they wont be trusting Polaris or Grub again, there is no reliable data indicating TOP's decision making processes regarding pre-emptive attacks to have changed.
[/quote]

How on earth can there be any "data" about such a thing?

Other than people repeatedly saying it, i dont think theres any other option to display it.

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1266192888' post='2181578']
You know as well as anyone that TOP leadership changes as regularly as IRON loses a full point of score during a war. The same people cycle in, cycle out. This is not a reflection of some great epiphany that the TOP membership has had, nor a "we've seen the light!" moment and subsequent recognition of their mistakes. Rather, this is simply another occasion where Crymson has stepped down, his hilariously incompetent partner in crime - Saber - remains present, and he will be re-elected down the line if he chooses to run once again. Complaints & Grievances, and the Cyberverse as a whole, will not be duped by TOP's misguided use of democracy into erroneously thinking that they are no longer the belligerent, deceitful, and downright conniving miscreants that they are.
[/quote]

Not only do you display blatant ignorance of the matter at hand (Saber had nothing to do with the DoW) but you quite clearly show what behavior made TOP think CnG was a threat. Thanks for contributing.

Edited by HellAngel
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='15 February 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1266251895' post='2183056']
How on earth can there be any "data" about such a thing?

Other than people repeatedly saying it, i dont think theres any other option to display it.
[/quote]I do believe you have some alliance leaders you need to approach, and initiate in communications that will make the offended party to believe you.

Of course, there has been a lot of posts saying TOP believes the particular attack on CnG was a mistake. But that could mean that they either wish it was done better, or that they regard the whole idea of pre-emptive strikes in general to be erronous. There is also data to indicate that this isn't the first time TOP attacks an alliance for being a perceived threat, but only data to indicate TOP considers this [i]particular[/i] pre-emptive attack to have been a mistake, not so much pre-emptive strikes in general.


In any case, you wont reach peace by forum arguments - you need to take this to the alliance leaders of the parties you've offended, and discuss terms of surrender. Sure you can inform your membership of the size of reparations NPO had to pay, but without even starting to discuss terms of surrender, it is intellectually dishonest to allow your membership to operate under the assumption that your victims are beyond doubt trying to enforce a repetition of the NPO terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='15 February 2010 - 07:15 AM' timestamp='1266239738' post='2182847']
Hey, I'm just pointing out that the guy who said TOP needed to change their leader needed to look at the facts. The point about rolling them is that the argument "we don't want to risk them gunning for us again by letting them get off easy" can be readily countered by "TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again" (and this was the case since day 1 of the front).
[/quote]

i don't think you got Doitzel's point. Polaris essentially couped ES and installed Grub and that did not stop the SPW. why should we let TOP's regular elections persuade us that they have changed? sorry, but regularly held elections do not indicate a damn thing especially if what Polaris did does not constitute a desire to change. and TOP did set that precedent themselves along with Gremlins, Umbrella, and others who fought Polaris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1266252904' post='2183086']
I do believe you have some alliance leaders you need to approach, and initiate in communications that will make the offended party to believe you.

Of course, there has been a lot of posts saying TOP believes the particular attack on CnG was a mistake. But that could mean that they either wish it was done better, or that they regard the whole idea of pre-emptive strikes in general to be erronous. There is also data to indicate that this isn't the first time TOP attacks an alliance for being a perceived threat, but only data to indicate TOP considers this [i]particular[/i] pre-emptive attack to have been a mistake, not so much pre-emptive strikes in general.


In any case, you wont reach peace by forum arguments - you need to take this to the alliance leaders of the parties you've offended, and discuss terms of surrender. Sure you can inform your membership of the size of reparations NPO had to pay, but without even starting to discuss terms of surrender, it is intellectually dishonest to allow your membership to operate under the assumption that your victims are beyond doubt trying to enforce a repetition of the NPO terms.
[/quote]

I never said we are expecting similar terms' as NPOs, but yeah... the thread kinda degraded to it. You see, I think we need to be defeated first before anyone starts talking about reparations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='15 February 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1266254822' post='2183119']
I never said we are expecting similar terms' as NPOs, but yeah...[/quote]Not you, but someone displaying membership in TOP posted something that would indicate his expectations to be as described.

[quote](...) the thread kinda degraded to it. You see, I think we need to be defeated first before anyone starts talking about reparations.
[/quote]Certainly. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='(DAC)Syzygy' date='11 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1265906730' post='2174915']
In the moment the attacker withdraws (offers surrender), and the defender does not take this offer - he stops being a defender. He is then no longer in defense, but in pursuit. That is why in almost every country there is a law that you can defend yourself against an attack with any means - but you have to stop if the attack is over, else you will be taken to court as well.


[/quote]

So...you support raiding? If I raid and offer peace right after...and that person attacks me back I can call in support from the rest of my alliance? Or even call in my treaty partners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to buy into "TOP did a terrible, terrible thing!" when so many other alliances, most of which were supported an shielded by the Supercomplaints groups, have almost regularly attacked alliances with no cause at all over the last few months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Heft' date='15 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266257605' post='2183193']
It's difficult to buy into "TOP did a terrible, terrible thing!" when so many other alliances, most of which were supported an shielded by the Supercomplaints groups, have almost regularly attacked alliances with no cause at all over the last few months.
[/quote]
Oh, but you see, when [i]they[/i] do it they're simply exercising their sovereign right to use naked aggression on a weaker adversary.

When TOP and Co. do it due to some founded paranoia, it's simply just [i]such a terrible thing[/i]. Why they've never heard the likes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Bob Janova post quoted here, but as I read the thread, I realized it would be more useful to say this - You're wrong on many points, and you're wrong because you don't have any idea of what actually happened. This would normally be okay, as the vast majority of people have no idea, but they aren't pretending to know what happened. You are. This is the problem. Please stop. It hurts.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='11 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1265911060' post='2175100']
[color="#0000FF"]No, his point is more that if someone punches you in the nose and then you quickly get them on the floor and disabled, you do not continue to kick them until they're bloody. You let up and them and then make them answer for what they did.[/color]
[/quote]

Out of curiosity, exactly how are we to make them answer for what they did? I'm noting quite a number of alliances believing them to be perfectly in the right, including TOP themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1266258507' post='2183207']
Out of curiosity, exactly how are we to make them answer for what they did? I'm noting quite a number of alliances believing them to be perfectly in the right, including TOP themselves.
[/quote]
Well, an apology worked well enough the first time, and we all know TOP ain't no Pacifica. You're intelligent enough to realize the difference in circumstances, moreover, you're also intelligent enough to know how boring you'd find unchallenged hegemony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Heft' date='15 February 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1266257605' post='2183193']
It's difficult to buy into "TOP did a terrible, terrible thing!" when so many other alliances, most of which were supported an shielded by the Supercomplaints groups, have almost regularly attacked alliances with no cause at all over the last few months.
[/quote]

actually it is quite simple if you also believe that SuperGrievances protected alliances who did the same. neither side is particularly innocent of aggressively attacking alliances uninvolved in anything (KoN/FoA/CnG). frankly, while i agree that CnG is in the right here, they are not innocent whatsoever when it comes to aggressively attacking alliances.

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1266258507' post='2183207']
Out of curiosity, exactly how are we to make them answer for what they did? I'm noting quite a number of alliances believing them to be perfectly in the right, including TOP themselves.
[/quote]

yet you were upset that \m/ was being punished for aggressively attacking another alliance without any cause? and you protected Athens/FoB when they did the same?

if you are gonna be upset that CnG was attacked without any real cause and wish to punish the perpetrators, at least be consistent when your allies or friends do the same thing. otherwise, you look foolish because you believe one set of alliances are wrong and should be punished, but get upset when others wish to punish your allies or friends for doing something similar in nature.

you refused to allow Athens/FoB to be attacked and stated that reps were certainly punishment enough. i wonder if TOP were willing to pay reps, if you would let them off? from what i have seen, this would not be the case as you feel that they deserve to be brought down to a level where they cannot threaten CnG again. this is quite a different attitude from the one you took with Athens/FoB. double standards anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='15 February 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1266262507' post='2183293']
yet you were upset that \m/ was being punished for aggressively attacking another alliance without any cause? and you protected Athens/FoB when they did the same?

if you are gonna be upset that CnG was attacked without any real cause and wish to punish the perpetrators, at least be consistent when your allies or friends do the same thing. otherwise, you look foolish because you believe one set of alliances are wrong and should be punished, but get upset when others wish to punish your allies or friends for doing something similar in nature.

you refused to allow Athens/FoB to be attacked and stated that reps were certainly punishment enough. i wonder if TOP were willing to pay reps, if you would let them off? from what i have seen, this would not be the case as you feel that they deserve to be brought down to a level where they cannot threaten CnG again. this is quite a different attitude from the one you took with Athens/FoB. double standards anyone?
[/quote]

Yes, MK wasn't pleased when \m/ got punished. It was the second time in a row in a short time someone did such a stupid thing (raiding a small alliance). But it's \m/ and we don't really like them so meh. We were also displeased when our allies in Athens and FoB did it. Believe me, they got an earful. Does that mean we should let them to the wolves? Certainly not. Well, the wolves could have tried but that would have mean going through us. I don't know about you but one of the reasons MK is so highly regarded and sought after is because we uphold our treaties no matter the odds. Now, if we dropped our allies because they did something stupid, what would that make of us? Well, IAA apparently. We worked hard and assured Athens realised it wasn't a smart move and made up for it. Which they did. Whether their punishment is enough for you and the previously mentionned wolves is irrelevant. C&G did what C&G thought was right. If you aren't happy about, well, too bad.

Now, I'm not gov't anymore but if you're alluding to Archon wanting the disbanding of TOP and co, you're desillusional, thick or doing it on purpose. Either way, you really shouldn't talk out of your arse. I'm pretty sure MK would be happy with reps. But we certainly aren't going to let someone who attacked us without a good reason walk scoff free.

Edited by potato
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='15 February 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1266262507' post='2183293']
i wonder if TOP were willing to pay reps, if you would let them off? from what i have seen, this would not be the case as you feel that they deserve to be brought down to a level where they cannot threaten CnG again. this is quite a different attitude from the one you took with Athens/FoB. double standards anyone?
[/quote]

TOP isn't willing to pay reps. If they were, it would be a different story. Beyond going off on a tangential topic almost utterly unrelated to my statement, you're also outright wrong, speaking complete untruths, and then accusing me of hypocrisy. If you cannot be bothered to check your facts prior to posting, then please don't post.

My statement was more in the line of asking how I'm going to make people make up for what they did. They have no allies who are encouraging them to make amends (as in the Athens/FoB situation), in fact most of their allies are quite happy with what they did and are supportive of it. So in the absence of that, and in the absence of any native desire within TOP to "make amends", I was asking Rebel Virgina for ideas with respect to how to "make" TOP "make amends."

Reading comprehension, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1266264673' post='2183358']
TOP isn't willing to pay reps. If they were, it would be a different story. Beyond going off on a tangential topic almost utterly unrelated to my statement, you're also outright wrong, speaking complete untruths, and then accusing me of hypocrisy. If you cannot be bothered to check your facts prior to posting, then please don't post.

My statement was more in the line of asking how I'm going to make people make up for what they did. They have no allies who are encouraging them to make amends (as in the Athens/FoB situation), in fact most of their allies are quite happy with what they did and are supportive of it. So in the absence of that, and in the absence of any native desire within TOP to "make amends", I was asking Rebel Virgina for ideas with respect to how to "make" TOP "make amends."

Reading comprehension, anyone?
[/quote]
Might be they remember,"no draconian terms" that evolved into 10 billion. Your allies and supporters redefined draconian and approaching you would be more of the same;or with real leadership you would approach them with a offer which wasn't one of revenge. And if revenge is not you motive why did you accept reps from a front you were not even in from the last war.Revenge by my definition, reserving the right to redefine meaning of words like you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...